| Lawsuit
Against Ousted Bronx Pol Andy King
Proceeds As Defense Motions On Shaky
Ground
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
March 23 – Back in December
2020, with a legal filing full
of misspellings asking to
enjoin an election or its
results, a dozen constituents
of ousted New York City
Council member Andy King asked
a Federal judge for a
restraining order. It was
denied.
U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Valerie E. Caproni, in a
proceeding covered by Inner
City Press, asked how the
plaintiffs had standing.
(King's own lawsuit against
the City Council for ousting
him 48-2 for misconduct had
already failed).
Judge
Caproni declined to issue a
preliminary injunction in
Marchant et al v. De Blasio et
al., 20-cv-10544 (Caproni).
Then on
April 12, fellow SDNY Judge Paul A. Crotty
held a proceeding in the case King v. City
of New York, 20-cv-8283 (Crotty). He gave
King's lawyer Pamela Hayes two weeks to file
more papers. She asked for three.
Judge Crotty
said he was not inclined, but then relented.
He gave three weeks but said if the papers
are not in, he will dismiss the case. That
case is King v. City
of New York, 20-cv-8283 (Crotty).
On May 27,
SDNY Judge Edgardo Ramos held a proceeding
in a case against King, by former staffer
Shana Melius for retaliation. The NYC City
Council was refusing to produce documents
unless ordered by a court. So ordered.
On October 28,
2021 Judge Ramos held another proceeding in
this case. He was amazed that some discovery
remained to be done, but gave a brief
extension for it to happen.
Jump cut to
March 23, 2022 when Judge Ramos held another
conference. Inner City Press again covered
it. The defense argued that ordering Melius
to report to work in the North Bronx and not
250 Broadway was not an adverse employment
action. Her lawyer said it added two and a
half hours to her commute, and precluded
IVF. The defense argued she'd like on her
application for employment and so lost
rights to sue. Judge Ramos disagreed and
said he doubted he would grant these
motions. So the case proceeds.
This case is
Melius v. New York City Council et al.,
20-cv-5237 (Ramos)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
